Dukkhanirodha wrote:Do you mean to say you consider that the word sati can have only one meaning? If you do, I am curious to know on which ground.

There's not a single passage in the Sutta that would define 'sati' differently.Even later Pali texts, including the Visuddhimagga, define sati through memory and related factors.

The definition of four satipatthana includes sampajanna, atapi and anupasanna, but that doesn't change the definition of sati itself.

My position is actually the following:

Thank you, I have understood your position.

I hope you won't get angry at speaking so plainly, but it seems the problem is that you take the abhidhamma as word of the bible and you neglect common sense understanding.

I'm not an Abhidhamma fan. I just use the most reliable sources available. Without the early exegetical texts (including Vibhanga), and Commentaries, we are often left with modern arbitrary guesswork. Unfortunately, the Suttas are sometimes cryptic, and it's better to use early Pali texts for their clarification, than to make guesses.

Ven. Mahasi Sayadaw and Ven. Pa Auk Sayadaw wrote in Burmese, not in English. The terms of English translations are the evidence of modern accepted terms, and nothing more.

The term "mindfulness" and other terms, introduced by Thomas Rhys Davids, the author of Pali-English dictionary, got so deeply embedded in global Buddhism, that even his errors obtained a worldwide popularity.

Vibhanga sutta describes the right ways to apply the eight factors. The description of right action:

"And what, monks, is right action? Abstaining from taking life, abstaining from stealing, abstaining from unchastity: This, monks, is called right action."

doesn't mean that the definition of "action" is "abstaining".

Similarly, the definition of 'sati' through four satipatthanas dosnt mean that the definition of "remembrance" (sati) is "being focused" (anupassana).

The Buddha seemingly taught the Maha Satipatthana sutta for a larger purpose than you presumed (establishing sati):

373. Bhikkhus,[1] this is the one and only way for the purification[2] of beings, for overcoming sorrow and lamentation, for the complete destruction of pain[3] and distress,[4] for attainment of the Noble Path,[5] and for the realization of Nibbāna. That[6] is the practice of the four methods of Steadfast Mindfulness.[7]

Still, other suttas are also to be taken in account. For example, Anapanasati sutta describes some important aspects of Satipatthana practice, and the how the seven Awakening factors are developed in the course of this practice. All of these factors are to be taken in consideration.

"Sati as attending to the working of the five khandas is clearly also as important."

My understanding is this: sati as remembering to distinguish the skillful and unskillful apply to the first stages, where one has to remember what has been taught, or understood intellectually about the wholesome and unwholesome. As one follows the instruction given in the Mahasatipatthana, one turns attention inward to Kaya - Vedana- Citta- Dhamma, sati starts to "remember" reality as they arise instead of learnt concepts, although concepts are still much involved. When sampajana becomes stronger and stronger, it can see sati "remembers" details of reality (sabhava) then gradually the tilakkhana becomes predominant, Tilakkhana is not remembered, but understood by panna. This remembering of reality as they arise is not the same than remembering learnt concepts where sanna is involved.

Well, in practice sati isn't too conceptual. When you remember, for example, to relax the body, or to grow non-carnal happiness, or maintain a spacious mind, - these are quite tangible things.

Dukkhanirodha wrote:IMO this paragraph makes it very clear that the practice of sati involves the observation of phenomena in the present moment, and in this context there is little room IMO for remembrance.

The observation of any given phenomenon in the present moment is insufficient for developing discernment. Without the ability to compare that which is now present to that which is no longer present there is no way to recognize impermanence or change. And it is memory which makes this comparison possible.

dhamma follower wrote:Tilakkhana is not remembered, but understood by panna.

Again, the recognition of impermanence always relies on memory and is therefore always inferential. And since the recognition of unsatisfactoriness and the recognition of selflessness are based upon the recognition of impermanence they too are inferential.

Dukkhanirodha wrote:IMO this paragraph makes it very clear that the practice of sati involves the observation of phenomena in the present moment, and in this context there is little room IMO for remembrance.

The observation of any given phenomenon in the present moment is insufficient for developing discernment. Without the ability to compare that which is now present to that which is no longer present there is no way to recognize impermanence or change. And it is memory which makes this comparison possible.

dhamma follower wrote:Tilakkhana is not remembered, but understood by panna.

Again, the recognition of impermanence always relies on memory and is therefore always inferential. And since the recognition of unsatisfactoriness and the recognition of selflessness are based upon the recognition of impermanence they too are inferential.

sati: the term has two meanings which, although apparently opposed are actually related:1) awareness, attention, mindfulness, fact of being clearly conscious/ vigilant. It is one of the seven bojjhaṅgas, said to be the most important because the other six are to be developed along with it. The standard defintion of sammā-sati, given for example at SN 45.8, actually consists of the description of the four satipaṭṭhānas. Sati is one of the five spiritual indriyas and the five balas. Sati as one of the five balas is defined at AN 5.14.2) memory, recollection. This aspect of sati is actually also covered by the definition given at AN 5.14.These two meanings are related in the sense that an awareness supported by the collectedness of concentration is a necessary condition to get proper perception and understanding of what is happening in the present moment, which enables an easy recollection at a later time of what precisely was happening, of what was said, what was done at a prior moment, even a long time before.http://www.suttapitaka.net/glossary.html#sati

Ñāṇa wrote:This is a good example of the now rather common conflation of sati and sampajañña.

Sorry but there is no basis for this assertion of yours.

Of course there is. Both according to the Vibhaṅga as well as SN 47.35. Sati is not synonymous with sampajañña and sampajañña is not synonymous with sati.

ok, I misunderstood your statement. So, yes there is conflation of sati and sampajañña. And this comes from the suttas. I have tried to find a definition of sampajañña which would be independant from the one of sati, but I came up with the conclusion that sampajañña is nearly always associated with sati. I don't see anything wrong here, nor anything worthy to be discussed about.

Ñāṇa wrote:

Dukkhanirodha wrote:1) You are not to-the-point. We are not discussing the meaning of these three words, only the meaning of sati

All the Pāli sources I've provided give the meaning of sati.

Whatever. My point was that I was discussing a very precise question and you came with all that material which was only partly relevant to the discussion, hence my statement. Again, nothing worthy of being discussed here.

Ñāṇa wrote:

Dukkhanirodha wrote:2) Apparently you did not understand what Dmytro meant in his sentence 'The "observing" (anupassana) in the satipatthana definition relates to sampajanna, and not to sati', because it refers to earlier messages you are not bearing in mind.

I did understand, and already provided a link to a bilingual version of the Satipaṭṭhānavibhaṅga in an earlier post. I was hopeful that you would take it upon yourself to do some leg work and study these ancient Pāli source materials.

ok, I was wrong in this point #2, and I apologize. I also admit that I don't have the time to read all the posts, so I am also partly participating to the attitude I was just condemning (I don't slip in the conversation of others though). But at the same time, it may be considered polite to make the effort of providing proper links in each of your statements.

Ñāṇa wrote:

Dukkhanirodha wrote:4) If I take the definition of sati as given in the english translation of the Vibhanga you provided, it seems that I agree with it, since it defines it as meaning both recollection (of the past, apparently) and mindfulness (of the present, apparently). So there is no point in your trying to be "against" what I am saying here.

5) similarly, I agree with the points you make in your other quotations, where sati means either recollection or mindfulness. Which makes me wonder if you are really trying to demonstrate anything.

Your failure to appreciate the subtleties of what is under discussion is your issue and no one else's.

This attack is baseless. I said: 'If I take the definition of sati as given in the english translation of the Vibhanga you provided, it seems that I agree with it'. So my "failure" to appreciate the subtleties of the discussion was due to the fact that I didn't have the original text at my disposal and no time to look for it, and I had already expressed the probability of this eventuality. Anyway, we are getting personal here and drifting far away from the subject.

Ñāṇa wrote:

Dukkhanirodha wrote:

Ñāṇa wrote:When we see this level of accord among the suttas, the canonical abhidhamma texts, and the early para-canonical treatises, then there is no reason to dismiss what they are saying. Rather, it's incumbent upon us to reassess our own opinions on the matter.

Irrelevant.

Actually, it's quite relevant whether you acknowledge its relevance or not. The Pāli Tipiṭaka is a better and more authoritative source than your opinions.

[/quote]ok, then please explain me in which way the definition of sati I quoted above :

sati: the term has two meanings which, although apparently opposed are actually related:1) awareness, attention, mindfulness, fact of being clearly conscious/ vigilant. It is one of the seven bojjhaṅgas, said to be the most important because the other six are to be developed along with it. The standard defintion of sammā-sati, given for example at SN 45.8, actually consists of the description of the four satipaṭṭhānas. Sati is one of the five spiritual indriyas and the five balas. Sati as one of the five balas is defined at AN 5.14.2) memory, recollection. This aspect of sati is actually also covered by the definition given at AN 5.14.These two meanings are related in the sense that an awareness supported by the collectedness of concentration is a necessary condition to get proper perception and understanding of what is happening in the present moment, which enables an easy recollection at a later time of what precisely was happening, of what was said, what was done at a prior moment, even a long time before.

is in contradiction with any of your quotations, and how your "being against" what I am saying makes any sense.

Dukkhanirodha wrote:Do you mean to say you consider that the word sati can have only one meaning? If you do, I am curious to know on which ground.

There's not a single passage in the Sutta that would define 'sati' differently.

This is not a proof that sati has only one meaning. Only a conjecture.

Dmytro wrote:Even later Pali texts, including the Visuddhimagga, define sati through memory and related factors.

I am skeptical about all those late Pali works, sorry. It seems to me that they take a particular interpretation for the one and only possible. I don't think that because it was a long time ago that a mistake was made, we have to keep making the same today.

Dmytro wrote:The definition of four satipatthana includes sampajanna, atapi and anupasanna, but that doesn't change the definition of sati itself.

It seems you are thinking like a dictionary, without exploring what these words put together in sentences mean as a reference to what happens in the real world. Can you explain then how it would make sense that the ability to recollect the past would be developped by observing the reality of the body and mind in the present moment, otherwise than by the way explained in the twofold definition I gave above (see immediately previous post)?

Dmytro wrote:

I hope you won't get angry at speaking so plainly, but it seems the problem is that you take the abhidhamma as word of the bible and you neglect common sense understanding.

I'm not an Abhidhamma fan. I just use the most reliable sources available.

personally I consider the practice as being the most reliable source available. So that might be a major point of disagreement.

Dmytro wrote:Without the early exegetical texts (including Vibhanga), and Commentaries, we are often left with modern arbitrary guesswork. Unfortunately, the Suttas are sometimes cryptic, and it's better to use early Pali texts for their clarification, than to make guesses.

This is right, but only in a partial way. You are obviously forgetting that we are also left with the practice. The suttas will always remain cryptic for those who do not practice.

Last edited by Sekha on Tue Nov 29, 2011 12:21 am, edited 1 time in total.

All sixteen talks had been prepared in English, and then read in English by the Sayadaw

So I am afraid you are forced to admit that it happens that you are wrong and that your views are in contradiction with those of at least two of the greatest meditation teachers we have today: Pa Auk Sayadaw and SN Goenka (for the latter I can easily provide the proof).

I also bring under your attention that you have still not provided a satisfactory response to the contextual analysis I proposed.

A bhikkhu, having gone to the forest or having gone at the root of a tree or having gone to an empty room, sits down folding the legs crosswise, setting kāya upright, and setting sati parimukhaṃ. Being sato, he breathes in, being sato he breathes out.

How could it be possible to set remembrance on any spot of the body? IMO this interpretation does not fit in this context. It makes much more sense to understand it as "presence of mind" as suggested by Ven. Analayo.

you answered:

Dmytro wrote:Be it for bad or for good, but without the early exegetical texts and the Commentary we can only guess what some Sutta passages mean.

'Sati upaṭṭhāna' means that 'sati', having approached, stays on that basis of concentration (ārammaṇa) (i.e. the perceptual image (nimitta) which has arisen due to natural in-and-out-breath).

Patisambhidamagga-Atthakatha 2.509

Teachers in the traditions of Acarn Lee Dhammadharo and Ven. Pa Auk Sayadaw are able to describe the arising of nimitta "patimukham" in more detail.

This answer looks very much like an attempt to drown the fish. I provide you with a very clear context and a very clear remark and you answer with an obscure formula in Pali taken from the commentary, without proper English translation, to which you ascribe a very profound meaning.

This is no satisfactory answer and is also irrelevant, be it only because the arising of the nimitta comes after a certain amount of practice, whereas the above mentioned formula explains how to set up oneself to begin the practice.

Last edited by Sekha on Tue Nov 29, 2011 12:37 am, edited 2 times in total.

Dukkhanirodha wrote:IMO this paragraph makes it very clear that the practice of sati involves the observation of phenomena in the present moment, and in this context there is little room IMO for remembrance.

The observation of any given phenomenon in the present moment is insufficient for developing discernment. Without the ability to compare that which is now present to that which is no longer present there is no way to recognize impermanence or change. And it is memory which makes this comparison possible.

It is not because I have said that in this particular context sati refers to present moment awareness that you can conclude that I have said that there should be no faculty of memory involved somewhere in the process.

Maybe it will be clearer this way: saying that A does not mean B is not equivalent to saying that A means the opposite of B.

Dukkhanirodha wrote:It is not because I have said that in this particular context sati refers to present moment awareness that you can conclude that I have said that there should be no faculty of memory involved somewhere in the process.

Remembrance is quite central to the development of satipaṭṭhāna. This pertains to the common refrain encountered throughout the Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta(s), which demonstrates that the practice of satipaṭṭhāna involves more than present moment awareness. The refrain runs as follows:

He abides contemplating the nature of arising in the body, or he abides contemplating the nature of passing away in the body, or he abides contemplating the nature of both arising and passing away in the body.

This passage occurs for each of the meditation subjects presented throughout the body contemplation section, as well as the sections dealing with the contemplation of feelings, mind, and dhammas. And this development of satipaṭṭhāna relies on the remembrance of what has been previously learned as well the relationship of presently occurring phenomena to those which have passed away.

SN 47.42 informs us on how this arising and disappearance of the body, feelings, mind, and dhammas is to be understood as follows:

And what, monks, is the arising of the body? With the arising of nutriment there is the arising of the body. With the cessation of nutriment there is the disappearance of the body.

With the arising of contact there is the arising of feeling. With the cessation of contact there is the disappearance of feeling.

With the arising of name-and-form there is the arising of mind. With the cessation of name-and-form there is the disappearance of mind.

With the arising of attention there is the arising of phenomena. With the cessation of attention there is the disappearance of phenomena.

The commentary on the Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta adds that this contemplation can be extended to include further examinations of conditionality as detailed in the Paṭisambhidāmagga. Without remembering and bringing to mind these modes of analysis there is no way of developing satipaṭṭhāna.

Again, the noun sati is related to the verb sarati, which means "to remember." This meaning is retained in all of the Pāli texts which define sati and give instructions of the development of satipaṭṭhāna.

Dukkhanirodha wrote:It is not because I have said that in this particular context sati refers to present moment awareness that you can conclude that I have said that there should be no faculty of memory involved somewhere in the process.

Remembrance is quite central to the development of satipaṭṭhāna. (...)

Do you know Don Quichotte?There is no disagreement between us on all that you say in this section.

Again, the noun sati is related to the verb sarati, which means "to remember." This meaning is retained in all of the Pāli texts which define sati and give instructions of the development of satipaṭṭhāna.

Then can you explain why we have this definition for samma-sati, which is a particular type of sati:

Not sure if this was posted yet but on Oct 16th (last month) at Spirit Rock Meditation center Bhikkhu Analayo offered a talk on "Mindfulness According to Early Buddhist Sources" which can be listened too here:

2011-10-16 Mindfulness According to Early Buddhist Sources 2:37:12 [..

"The aim of my presentation will be to investigate what mindfulness practice is about according to the early Buddhist discourses. These discourses have been preserved in the Pali Nikayas, in the Chinese Agamas, and at times also in Sanskrit fragments and sutra quotations preserved in Tibetan. From a historical viewpoint, these discourses represent the earliest layer of Buddhist textual material and thus take us back as close as possible to the original instructions delivered by the Buddha. In these texts, we find two basic expositions: 1) the fourfold establishment of mindfulness taught in general; 2) the threefold establishment of mindfulness associated with the Buddha himself. First, I will examine the fourfold establishment of mindfulness, based on the way it is depicted in the different extant versions of the Discourse on Mindfulness and the Discourse on Mindfulness of Breathing. Then, I will compare these to the threefold establishment of mindfulness. Through such comparison, I hope to arrive at key aspects of Buddhist mindfulness practice according to the earliest available textual sources at our disposition."

Dukkhanirodha wrote:IMO this paragraph makes it very clear that the practice of sati involves the observation of phenomena in the present moment, and in this context there is little room IMO for remembrance.

The observation of any given phenomenon in the present moment is insufficient for developing discernment. Without the ability to compare that which is now present to that which is no longer present there is no way to recognize impermanence or change. And it is memory which makes this comparison possible.

dhamma follower wrote:Tilakkhana is not remembered, but understood by panna.

Again, the recognition of impermanence always relies on memory and is therefore always inferential. And since the recognition of unsatisfactoriness and the recognition of selflessness are based upon the recognition of impermanence they too are inferential.

I agree with this interpretation of remembrance. Therefore from my perspective what is called "impermanence" actually is a fabrication, i.e. an active synthesis, but cannot be "directly" (i.e. non-conceptually) perceived.

TMingyur wrote:Therefore from my perspective what is called "impermanence" actually is a fabrication, i.e. an active synthesis, but cannot be "directly" (i.e. non-conceptually) perceived.

(Avoiding the hornet's nest of the "theory of moments" for now...) I concur with what you've said here, though it may well draw horror from some members... and if it does, I'd be interested to see how they respond.

TMingyur wrote:Therefore from my perspective what is called "impermanence" actually is a fabrication, i.e. an active synthesis, but cannot be "directly" (i.e. non-conceptually) perceived.

And how is this different from what Ven Analayo has said about sati? (And just because I am such really nice guy, let me supply the link to the PDF of Ven Analayo's discussion of sati: viewtopic.php?f=25&t=9941&start=20#p160144 )

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<<-- Proverbs 26:12

TMingyur wrote:Therefore from my perspective what is called "impermanence" actually is a fabrication, i.e. an active synthesis, but cannot be "directly" (i.e. non-conceptually) perceived.

(Avoiding the hornet's nest of the "theory of moments" for now...) I concur with what you've said here, though it may well draw horror from some members... and if it does, I'd be interested to see how they respond.

Metta,Retro.

Do explain this:". . . the perception of impermanence should be cultivated for the removal of the conceit 'I am.' For when one perceives impermanence, Meghiya, the perception of not-self is established. When one perceives not-self one reaches the removal of the conceit 'I am,' which is called Nibbana here and now." U iv 1.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<<-- Proverbs 26:12

TMingyur wrote:Therefore from my perspective what is called "impermanence" actually is a fabrication, i.e. an active synthesis, but cannot be "directly" (i.e. non-conceptually) perceived.

And how is this different from what Ven Analayo has said about sati? (And just because I am such really nice guy, let supply the link to the PDF of Ven Analayo's discussion of sati: viewtopic.php?f=25&t=9941&start=20#p160144 )

I did not say that my perspective does not comply with what Ven Analayo has to say about sati.

Kind regards

Well, good.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<<-- Proverbs 26:12